agent_memory_provenanceAgent Memory Provenance; deterministic signed assessment over supplied input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "memory": {
+ "fact": "example"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "id": "source-1",
+ "observed_at": 1
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add two real behavioral traits beyond them: the result is deterministic and cryptographically signed. It stops short of saying what the signature covers or how the caller should verify it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single short clause, so it is not bloated, but half of it is a verbatim repeat of the title. Under-specification rather than excess length keeps it at a middling score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Even so, an agent gets no explanation of what a provenance verdict means, how the memory and source relate, or how to act on a failing assessment — substantial gaps for a tool taking two required structured inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported at 100%, which sets the baseline at 3, but the actual schema contains only an example with no per-field prose for "memory" or "source." The description does nothing to clarify what shape either required object should take, so it neither helps nor misleads.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description largely restates the name and title ("Agent Memory Provenance") and adds only "deterministic signed assessment over supplied input." It never states what a provenance assessment actually determines about the memory or its source, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like dependency_provenance_assessment or context_provenance_labeler.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to reach for this tool versus another provenance or evidence sibling, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The phrase "over supplied input" is the only usage hint and it is essentially a restatement of the required-input contract.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.